ac500 "fuge" - why?

[skylsdale]

Here is the post I was referring to:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Rick Davis

Ammonia is the preferred source of nitrogen for most algae so some will be consumed by algae - if algae is present in the system. Most of the rest goes through the nitrification cycle with bacteria and while I agree that some of the ammonia may be exported via bacteria flock I think a large amount of ammonia remains in the system and needs to be reduced by nitrifiers attached to your surface area of choice.

 

Bomber? What say Ye?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You're right. It's also the preferred source for bacteria and a few other things that can beat the pants off algae as far as getting to it first. Plus nitrogen compounds and phosphorous compounds - for the most part - are found in forms that algae can't use until bacteria changes and released it in forms that it's adapted to use.

 

OK let me try that again.

 

What came first, the chicken or the egg? the bacteria or the algae?

 

Algae has adapted to use nutrients that for the most part are the by-products of bacteria. That's why Ron sees algae inside those rocks in the first place. It's also why you see things like hair algae growing on spots of detritus when the water column tests zero for phosphates.

AND why I tell people that all the water changes, algae filters, phosphate sponges in the world is a silly way to get rid of hair algae.

[Hwarang]

*sends off the project*

I managed to stay away just long enough to make my deadline. Woot.

 

...

 

I haven't looked yet but I think I know which Shimek article you are talking about, I just read it last week.

 

*mulls more info over*

 

Maybe I will just fill it with rubble...

[skylsdale]

I'm pretty sure the above post was made before the Schimek article, and Bomber was just stating that based on previous works or ideologies from him. Regardless, do you see my point? By the time detritus has been processed down to nitrates via bacteria, you've already got a bunch more things being released and polluting the water column that aren't going to be removed by macros. The logical solution is to then get rid of the detritus before the bacteria can even get to it (e.g. when it breaks down).

 

This is one of the problems people are discovering with DSB's. Yes, their nitrates were zero or next to nothing...but over the years the sandbed is soaking up phosphates, etc. literally like a sponge due to the detritus and junk it's carrying. Sure, you've got countless critters and expensive detrivore kits in the sandbed breaking down that detritus...but that's only on a physical level. Ever heard one of the major proponents of the DSB methodology actually explain or even touch the topic of what happens to all the nutrients that were in the detritus? Probably not...because then it's not as desireable a method when you realize the junk being released into the substrate. Eventually the sandbed reaches maximum capacity and things start seeping into the water column. Enter uncontrollable nuisance algae outbreaks, phosphate levels off the chart, etc. At that point, a backup refugium of macro isn't going to help much. The phosphates are just going to continue being pumped into the water column.

 

A DSB isn't an end-all cure...it merely allows people to be lazy about cleaning the crap out of their tanks for a few years. Personally, I'm wondering if we'll see similar things happening in nanos over the next few years. Many people have been putting 3-4" sandbeds in their tanks. Even if they're not producing zones for denitrification, the sandbed is still going to soak up nutrients. However, being on a much smaller scale, I'm curious to see if people don't start seeing nuisance algae problems, etc. after a couple years in their nanos as the sandbeds get loaded up.

[BKtomodachi]

I think the macro absorbs nutrients when it can... so if you arent 100% on top of detritus removal then it helps even after its bad for your tank. As for size I plan on growning quite a bit of chaeto in a 5 gallon regugium on a 10 gallon tank, plumbed just like a HOB filter but just sitting behind the tank.

[MillerLite]

I cant agree that DSB are a way for people to be lazy from cleaning their tanks. I think there might actually be something here. Sure it doesnt work for everyone and eventually the DSB starts to leech substances back into the tank. But even if you had a regular sand bed, how often do you think you would vacuum the substrate. Aragonite gravel is a pain in the rear to keep clean and ultimately becomes a nitrate sink itself. I think eventually every sand bed ultimately has its problems. I think that in a nano where you have such a small surface to pollute, it may happen sooner. I cant say that I agree with DSB for nano but plenty people have had success in larger tanks. The other thing besides increased filtration in HOB refugium, you could always use a baster and suck up some of the pods to add to your tank. Someone mentioned that they had the ability to keep a mandarin with a refugium on their nano. That rocks...

[MillerLite]

One other thing, I think that many people build refugiums as one more DIY piece of equipment when they feel they need to change their setup from boredom. Cant say that one would absolutely need the fuge but it could be fun to make and to use. Many of the nano-reefers on this site have one and cant say that they are all wrong. ..

[Dutch]

Here is my ac500 fuge that i use on my 16g nano.

 

-I removed that black plastic peice on the intake and installed a baffle. Between the pump and baffle i have live rock. I then added a mineral mud SB and some macro. The last thing I put in there was my heater. The macro is really starting to take off and I will be clipping a bunch of tomorrow. You can see just how dense it has grown in there.

[skylsdale]

DSB Related Journals, Articles, and Scientific Papers

All the studies of high sediment areas (e.g. DSB-esque) had little to no similar life compared to what we try to keep in our tanks along with DSB's. In other words, little to no presence of stony corals, etc. It's worth noticing that some of the biggest proponents of DSB's (Ron Schimek being the most noted) specialize in inverts and bugs that are from these types of environments...so yeah, they're going to report success of things in these types of systems. I would say that if you want to keep a bunch of bugs or focus on keeping healthy detrivores, a DSB is the way to go. Even keeping organisms that seem to prefer higher nutrient environments (shrooms, xenia, zoanthids, etc.) would do well in these types of systems. But many people are trying to keep corals and other organisms that like much cleaner water...and they're trying to cram the best of both worlds into their tanks. It's not going to happen. It might for a little while, but eventually something's going to explode and throw the entire system out of wack. I don't think anyone would argue if it will happen, but rather when it will happen. Why take the chance? Why, if I know a few years from now that the sandbed is going to reach critical mass and I'm going to lose a TON of corals that I've spent good money on and worked my tail off keeping healthy and thriving, only to have to recoup from the disaster and spend time and money removing and/or replacing the entire sandbed...would I even go through with it in the beginning?

 

I know this seems to be getting a bit off track from the original subject of the thread. But, my point is that caluerpa uptake and DSB's are similar...it's too little, too late by the time these things begin to suck things up. Yeah, they might get the nitrates and ammonia and the basic things everyone knows about, but it's the phosphates and other organics that are feeding nuisance algaes and stressing out the corals...and there's nothing the DSB and macro can do about it because that stuff was released into the water column before those vehicles of nutrient uptake could take it out. It's too late.

 

Here's an interesting comment I just found in regards to caluerpa and what they take out of the water column (the comments are made in regard to a question by a person whose macros have reached a standstill in growth): "P is limiting for those guys. When you drop their supply of water soluble P, they will starve out. Just like in the real world." Yeah, P means phosphates. Thread can be found here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=55

[CjBurden]

Somehow this went from an argument of 'why do people have AC500 AS fuges' to 'why do people HAVE fuges'

 

you are arguing in the wrong post skylsdale. This wasn't about whether fuges were beneficial at all, it was about whether or not AC500's could work as fuges. They clearly CAN work as fuges in some situations. Whether or not fuges are a great device in and of themselves is another topic altogether.

[skylsdale]

you are arguing in the wrong post skylsdale.

 

First of all, I wasn't arguing.

 

Second of all, if you want to start cracking down about sidetracked threads, you're going to have to delete about 3/4 of all threads and posts on NR.com. There have been tons of threads on using AC500's as refugiums, so I don't understand the point on keeping this one so "pristine." It's not covering anything that hasn't already been talked about many times before. However, if Hwrang was getting offended or ticked about how the discussion had evolved, I assume he would say something about it...at which point I would have no problem ending it. On the contrary, he actually engaged the discussion, which promoted its continuance.

 

Sure, it's one thing to discuss the intricacies of an AC500 fuge...but, if the relevance and benefits (or lack thereof) are somewhat obvious, I think that those things need to be brought and discussed. It's how the hobby advances--deal with it. People are so convinced that there macro refugiums are going to keep their water columns so pristine (through no research or data of their own gathering), that they don't even want to hear anything on the contrary. I don't know about anyone else, but I was always told and have come to understand that GOOD SCIENCE is a product of constant questioning and looking at things from different angles.

[Hwarang]

I don't mind the derailment, it brought illumination. Besides, how often are your IRL conversations linear? A conversation is all about jumping along tangents.

 

And yes, I would say something if it bugged me. I'm a loudmouth like that.

 

Lastly ...

have come to understand that GOOD SCIENCE is a product of constant questioning and looking at things from different angles.

Yes indeed, which is why I wanted to hear what skysdale had to say.

[MillerLite]

Easy guys. How quickly posts can become pointed and slanted towards a lecture or argument. Although everyone brings up several good points here, take the recommendations and suggestions of everyone as a result of their own research and experiences. I have seen some things work for some people that others fail miserably at. It all depends on the nature of the individual and setup. In addition, although the average reefer would like his/her reef water to be pristine as skysdale said, we can only do the best we can in the limited space to improve the overall water quality and delay its deterioration. I cant believe that a refuge would cause any harm to your tank and the benefits or possible advantages of the system may help the overall health of the aquarium. At the very least, you are adding more water to your tank that can increase overall stability. One extra gallon of water to a 7 gallon tank could help dramatically. Plus, it could also help to clean up the viewing area of your tank by holding your heater and skimmer. Just my two cents...good luck!

[Herdy]

Just buy an Ecosystem 40

[jumboshrimp18]

This is a really interesting post even though it seems to be running in two entirely seperate tangents.

Hi Hwarang--you really are the master of the experimental modification process whether they all work out or not. Thanks for your help in the past.

Somebody help me out here--is a fuge something like a cross between a filter and a refugium? Is AC 300 stand for AquaClear "500" Power Filter? Lastly, is the EcoSystem 40 kinda like what you are trying to do here?

[jumboshrimp18]

I kinda answered my own questions by reading through the Refugium Discussion so don't let me get in the middle of this thread.

Hwarang--sure interested to know what the people at JBJ come up with for their new 28 gallon tank. As the company is promising a stand as well, hopefully there will some space to work with for a sump or fuge or whatever.

[Hwarang]

OMG that Ecosystem 40 is *way* too expensive for what you get. It's almost identical to the CPR HOB fuge which is a lot cheaper.

 

 

**

jumboshrimp18

 

I have to work with existing products until I have a garage I can turn into a Lexan fabrication shop. That's all it is.

 

is a fuge something like a cross between a filter and a refugium?

Sorta. Look up refugium and whatnot. It's generally built into the sump, but sometimes a seperate hang on 'fuge is used. The purpose is to hold macro algae, provide a haven for any critter that needs a time out, and support filtration (you let a fuge get gunky so all that algae is denitrifying)

 

 

Is AC 300 stand for AquaClear "500" Power Filter?

Yes although I discoverd that it's too much for a nano. For my 5.5 I needed to go with an ac300 not ac500, and use the smaller impeller and surface skimmer attachment.

 

also if you go to JBJ's site now they have a stand for the existing nano, it's ok looking. better than waht i crafted. i am anticipating the next nanocube as well.

[The Keeper]

Regardless of whether or not a fuge is good or bad for your tank. I think ac500's are awesome for nano's. Especially for people who dont want to pimp out there 10 dollar tank.. Some people spend enough money on their larger more complex setups and don't need to be skimming, using mh, using complex plumbing and huge pumps...

 

I wanted a quick, simple nano.. I got a 5.5g an ac500 with skimmer, i cut the impeller, made a baffle to hold floss or occasional media (purigen, carbon, phosguard) threw my heater in there with the media, and then added lots of rock, some sand, and some macro in the main section... It hides my equiptment, adds more overall water volume, holds some macro, and provides flow..

 

5.5g $8

used ac500 w/ skimmer $25

25 watt heater $15

sand from fowlr tank free

rock from sps tank free

 

the tank is assembled and cycling in 20 minutes..easy, quick, and cheap...i say thats why use an ac500 fuge..